Ontological Argument for the Existance of God

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God exists

Logically speaking, God MUST exist. But what God actually IS, no one really knows. He can be energy, mass, or some sort of spiritual being. All of these three fulfill the description: cannot be created nor destroyed.

You have not proven 1.

>>2
is a idiot

>>3
lol nice grammar

>>1
>>3
same person
God does not exist, because it can only get past the hypothesis and possibly the observation stage of science. If we could create a test that could prove his existence, then I would convert to Christan, no questions asked.

He could be a giant space hooter

>>1


Haven't proven point 3
Haven't proven point 1 has any meaning other than 'the greatest thing to exist', which in no way even implies God.
Also point 2 has no logical base. Why should something that is needed be "great"? You would think the GREATEST God could create a world that DOESN'T need him, otherwise it only shows the limitation of his power in doing so, and that makes him less great. Need has no influence on greatness whatsoever, end of story.


Also, doesn't the most commonly used argument go more like

:Nothing greater than God can be concieved
1)If God doesn't exist, than we can concieve of something greater than him (a God that DOES exist)
2)Since nothing greater than god can be concieved, God CAN'T not exist
Therefore, God exists

>>4

Just because something can't be tested doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or I suppose more accurately, just because something can't be tested with any tools even possibly used by humans doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's a pretty accepted fact that the universe in either infinitely complicated, or very very close to it, and that humans will never be able to understand but a sliver of it no matter how advanced out technology gets

>>8

That's right!  It is a pretty accepted fact after all.  That's what all the scientists and umm... doctors are saying these days.

>>9
?
Is your post supposed to mean something?
Translate to English?
doctors? wtf

Point #1 is proven by the Bible.

God wrote the Bible.

God is always right, the Bible says so.

QED

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater that I am God then not.
3. I am now God.
4. thank you 4chan.

My penis is god

>>1
Everyone below 1 fails logic. The answer is: step 1 was to define the word "God". Step 2 is what needs to be proven. Step 3 follows directly from step 2 and the definition (step 1). Step 4 does not logically follow from steps 1-3. ching chong nip nong nong

>>14
The entire thing is based on the assumption that god _can_ exist, first of all. This is never actually proven.

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

GRAMMAR PLS

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Medieval religious scholars were fluent in "Engrish"! LOL!

god does exist, but what god actually is relys completely on the observer

therefore god does not exist

>>19
well does achevement not exist? is romance fake? just because they are subjective? in one context yes, in the human context no. god is as real as you want him to be because god is not part of this universe eaither way, god therefor has the right to exist only in peoples minds as an ideal

He's saying god is subjective, not a ubiquitous force.

Everyone has their own Personal Jesus, to quote Depeche Mode.

"well does achevement not exist? is romance fake? just because they are subjective? in one context yes, in the human context no. god is as real as you want him to be because god is not part of this universe eaither way, god therefor has the right to exist only in peoples minds as an ideal"

God is supposedly objective, romance is completely subjective.

>>9

the uncertainty principle pretty much says we can't know everything in the universe.

>>22
by its very definition god is not objective, objective beliefs only exist in this reality, god is not part of this reality. any attempt to objectivily prove gods existance or otherwise will always be futile

>>23
We will never be able to measure everything precisely. That doesn't mean we won't be able to figure out the exact underlying rules of nature.

If god is not a part of this reality, that's just stupid.

>>26
welcome to agnosticism, also its not all that stupid

How so?
If god is not of this reality, I don't understand how he can be everywhere...

>>28
why does he have to be? im not argueing for a god that watches or cares about us. god is just the ultimate depiction of ourselves AND/OR the greatist product of human imagination, but i wouldnt say that makes him less real. as long as you dont attach objective observations and facts to him.

COME BACK WHEN U LEARN GRAMMAR

>>15
No. It is based on the assumption that there is a "greatest thing in existance", which by the well-ordering axiom (there are a countable number of atoms in the universe, thus a countable number of objects in the universe, thus a greatest object in the universe). Thus, I've demonstrated there is a "greatest object in the universe." Step 1 merely was defining this thing to be God. Now, it may be a Looney Tunes cartoon, or a cup, or a table, or an oxygen atom. The important thing is that I've just proven with maths that there exists a "greatest thing" or at the very weakest, a set of "greatest things". Then we give name to this thing, or the set of things: "God".

Not a proof that God is the Christian God, just that whatever Step 1 defines "God" to be actually exists.

>Logically speaking, God MUST exist. But what God actually IS, no one really knows.
That's true, the only problem is our current factions of cultists all like to think they're brilliant enough to know what it is, which of course, exposes these people for the unevolved pieces of shit they truly are, and we wonder why they spend all their time waging wars and other forms of trying to control people's lives.

There's nothing quite like idiots following idiots and dead idiots to their own deaths. Viva huumanity, gentlemen.

Holy hell this thread is full of retards

First of all, the title "greatest thing in the universe" has no meaning outside of humanity. If humans (or any intelligence) wasn't around to give that title to something, then NOTHING would be the greatest thing in the universe. So saying that 'X makes something great" has NO meaning besides "I think something needs X to be great"

It's entirely subjective, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is "There exists something or somethings (of undefined limit) for each person in the universe, such that if the person were to know about it, they would think it was the greatest thing in the universe"
And even that would be abstract since what a person thinks is 'great' can change as they live their lives.

Since what makes something great is subjective, you can't possibly make an argument or proof about any physical property of the universe using it.

>>33
this is the reason why science fails in philosophy

>>31
You're assuming the Well ordering axiom is true. Furthermore, even if I allow that it is true, your proof is still flawed in that you do not understand what a well ordered set is. The fact that N is well-ordered means that, if we number every object in the universe in some fashion (using positive integers), then there is an object corresponding to the least number. Presumably your argument is that we number objects according to "greatness" with the least number corresponding to the "greatest" object. However you have not defined greatness, nor have you proven that such a numbering exists.

Your argument, in essence, is similar to this:
Take the set {2, 2*3, 2*3*5, 2*3*5*7, 2*3*5*7*11, ...}. This set is countable, so by the well ordering principle there must be an element with the most prime factors.

>>35
all he said was that humans have the ability to organize data from the universe into great and lesser objects. how we organize it is of little importance in this argument

>>34
Yes, philosophical subjects and arguments simply cannot be proven. >>1 is an idiot, thread fails and readers should read up on philosophy before spouting more bullshit.

>>37
many philosophical arguments can be proven or disproven, because philosophy is merely an elaborative patch for the holes yet to be mended by scientific explanation.  the only things that cannot be disproven are the ones that present an object immune from physical detection, i.e. the existence of an immaterial soul.

>>38
Wrong, since when does philosophy deal with objects of physical nature? Discussions on Logic, Morals, Ethics, Metaphysics, Theology and so on can never be explained by science. While it's true that new scientific studies and discoveries would help philosophers in understanding more thus helping them in updating their arguments, it can only discourage and can never completely disprove an argument. After all, the subject of philosophy itself's the root of all intelligent thinking which includes science, hence why the highest degree granted in all the sciences and humanities is the PhD.

>>39
the reason the highest degree granted in those fields is called a PhD is because "philosophy" used to be the same thing as all those things, and "doctor" was someone committed to knowledge.  they've clearly separated now, but kept the name of the degree the same.  so, yes, science has its roots in philosophy, but it branched off when they decided 'hey, lets go find ways to test our ideas.' and started getting somewhere, scientifically.

"since when does philosophy deal with objects of physical nature?"
the tone of this question rests on the assumption that there are things which are non-physical, or more specifically (and absurdly), of all the things philosophers have argued about, none of them are physical.

why can't logic, morals, ethics be examined and explained scientifically?  morals and ethics are just social rules.  do you think humans invented social interaction?  do you think other animals dont have analogous (though simpler) rules?  they do, and we study theirs.  what makes logic work doesn't cease to exist in the absence of human thought.  whether or not something is really true or false doesn't depend on mankind.